We find ourselves in an era where the term 'aesthetic' is thrown around to the same extent as the acronym YOLO was about this time a decade ago. This obsession with how things look spreads across almost every facet of existence: from your boss' corporate obsession with the 'optics' of every action you take to the cutlery consciously matched with the painted walls of that one annoying friend's home improvement Instagram account.
When it comes to cinema, an art form that is a visual medium, after all, is there any real surprise that the same obsession with aesthetics can be found? Absolutely not. However, that is not to say that, not unlike that (soon to be unfollowed) home improvement Instagram account, things haven't gone too far. In the case of cinema, I am referring to what has become known as the 'A24 Aesthetic'.
It is strange to talk about this predominantly about this from a company-based perspective. Cinematography and direction, it goes without saying, play the biggest roles in crafting the look of a film. However, not since the days of (dare I mention them) Miramax in the 90s has a title card for a company during an indie film's opening credits offered such an assurance of quality filmmaking in the minds of an audience.
By no means do any of these observations reflect all that much on the quality of work released by A24. I would be the first to admit that many of the company's releases over the past ten years have been favourites of mine. What is exciting about A24 as a company is their desire to take risks and put work into the world with something to say. Often, alongside the risks being taken in terms of subject matter, comes stylistic risks too: be that a non-standard aspect ratio, long uninterrupted takes of graphic scenes or - heaven forbid - non-English dialogue. I do acknowledge that it seems reductive to dismiss non-English dialogue as a stylistic choice, but it feels as though in the eyes of many of the other 'big name' distributors of independent film - non-English dialogue is exactly that.
None of these elements are by any means necessary a bad thing: in many cases, the first examples of films that decide to take these risks are usually exciting. It is, however, through repetition that these decisions move away from being risks and become much more tired and calculated. So, far from being directed towards A24 as an institution, instead, much of this criticism is directed to the other distributors and production companies who pine after projects that seek to replicate this 'aesthetic' placing far greater weight on style than on substance.
At a time when the world’s second-largest cinema chain is struggling to survive, owing to a “lack of blockbusters” (despite a number of near billion-dollar box office smashes this year), it is easy to see why studios are keen to play it safer. This is nothing new. This is something that we are accustomed to with studio films. However, the formalisation of this independent film style and content is more frightening than any of the Hereditary copycats that have been released in recent years. Risk-taking has always been at the core of independent cinema in terms of style and content, but financially speaking there is often an idea of low-risk high-reward.
It’s no wonder, then, that possibly the biggest culprits of leaning into the ‘A24 aesthetic’ are a distribution company that forms part of this financially doomed cinema conglomerate desperately seeking ways to get the administrators off their back. With their seats empty, it is easy to see why - when you have an independent distribution company as part of your corporate portfolio - you may look to the commercial success that A24 has achieved for inspiration in how to get your bank balance back on track.
However, with a distinct lack of fresh, innovative ideas the company instead have ended up pumping out a never-ending stream of stagnant content that struggles to fill even one row of the empty seats of the ‘independent’ chain cinema with which the distribution company shares a name. So intent on trying to replicate the success of A24, it is a company that has forgotten its own sense of identity. That is if one were to have existed in the first place.
The irony of course is that this commercialisation of independent cinema is stripping away the very creativity and originality it needs to be a financial success in the first place. We must get to a point where independent filmmakers' pitches of "[insert A24 hit] but it's [insert non-English language]" are not enough to rouse interest from the big independent distributors. We should be demanding that independent filmmakers exercise that freedom from the constraints of a studio system and dare to do something different. Yes, cinema is a visual medium, but at its core, it is also storytelling. If you're just going to tell me a story that an A24 film has already told me, please have the decency to at least try and not 'borrow' its visual style too. There is nothing ‘elevated’ about seeing the same horror film re-packaged through a slight change in scenery.
If cinema is to save itself, as the trailer for No Time to Die indicated to be the film's sole intention through the rather on-the-nose line "if we don't do this, there'll be nothing left for us to save", then we need to start seeing companies that are meant to represent independence operating in such a way. There is an increasing amount of content competing for the same audiences, and the best way to attract these audiences is not by re-creating what has already been released, but by being willing to take creative risks.
Leave creating A24 films to A24. If the company that the filmmakers are desperately trying to get the attention of by replicating their existing back catalogue are not interested in this film, perhaps you - the other independent distributors - should take note.